About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
required court approval. the statute referred to the technology at the time, those communications that were wired, radioed, or satellite technology. since 1978 we have seen a dramatic change of the technology of communications, particularly fiber optic cable, which has changed the court they try to get this case in electronic surveillance. the result is that leading up to 9/11 there are many instances where the government would have to go to get an order from the fisa court before they could wiretap communications overseas. that was not the intent of fisa originally. the amendment of 2008 was meant to address that problem. what it did was say that if the government is trying to surveil somebody overseas and they have a reasonable basis to believe that person is overseas and not in the united states, they do not have to go to the court for a particular provision. that was what was different about the 2008 statute, because it allowed the government to go forward with communications surveillance for a number of people without having to get special permission for each and every communication. t
investments in education. or clean energy. or research. and technology. we can't afford to roll back regulations on wall street banks or oil companies or insurance companies. that is not a jobs plan. it's not a plan to grow our economy. it's sure not a plan to strengthen our middle class. we have been there. we have tried that. we're not going back. we are moving forward. we've got a different view about how we create jobs and prosperity in this country. [applause] this country doesn't just succeed when just a few are doing well at the top. succeed is when the middle lass gets bigger. our economy doesn't grow from the top down. it grows from the middle out. we don't -- we don't believe that anybody's entitled to success in this country. but we do believe in opportunity. we believe in a country where hard work pays off. and responsibility is rewarded. and everybody's getting a fair shot. and everybody's doing their fair share. and everybody's playing by the same rules. believehe country we in. that's what we've been fighting for for the last four years. that's what we are going to put
to gather this morning thanks to the generosity of united technologies, utc. it's a very diversified company comprised of several well-known plans -- brands. utc climate controls and security and the utc aerospace including goodrich. they have been a wonderful partner. this is our final charlie cook given this year. the partner with us on the congressional poll that we do of congress is in session to bring that news and information here. as readers, you can be informed via utc and the polling as well. thank you to the entire team at utc for partnering with us not only on the charlie cook events but on the congressional poll. he is the senior vice president of global relations meaning he leads all of the government affairs activities for utc as well as all activities in that area. he is well known in washington. please welcome greg ward. [applause] >> thank you, victoria. thank you for that introduction. charlie just wanted to know what she was smoking to have such a nice introduction for me. it's nice to have an overflow crowd. something must have happened last night. must be the nats coming
that google will not continue to face lots of competitive rivalry from innovations in search technology. i will say a few words about the doctrine. the unicorn of antitrust law. everybody thinks they know it looks like a no one has actually seen one in the class. the idea is that there is some facility that is hard to duplicate. the owner of the facility is excluding competitors from using its and there are a few other elements to the test. in a case of internet search, the asserted facility is placed on google's page. but there's only limited amount of space that can come up on the page. so it is not possible that every competitor that thinks it is essential to be on the page can be accommodated. it is not clear how such a remedy would be feasible even if he thought it was necessary to do this in order to improve competition to benefit consumers. the u.s. courts have been very reluctant to buy into the essential facilities theory. the supreme court has said it has never endorsed the idea. it is very unlikely that an antitrust claim against google would ever succeed in court. i think i bet
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)